How Much is that Doggy in the Window? The Inevitably Unsatisfying Duty to Monetize

Adam F. Scales

Washington and Lee University - School of Law

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 33, No. 4, May 2006
Washington & Lee Legal Studies Paper No. 2006-13

It is impossible to imagine effective teaching or scholarship across a range of disciplines within the legal academy without some reference to economics. Impossible today, that is. Generations of students and professors did serviceably well before the ongoing transformation of the law school into a thoroughgoing academic discipline. Economic analysis most influentially embodies that ambition. Refracting legal and administrative decision-making through the lens of quantified risks and benefits is not simply desirable, it is inevitable. Indeed, a central descriptive claim of law and economics is that efficiency and social welfare concerns have always animated legal processes. The descriptive and normative claims of law and economics are, of course, open to debate. What is assuredly true is that students of the law - regardless of which side of the podium they find themselves - must at some point consider the material constraints on policy.

I have been asked to respond to Professor Kip Viscusi's contribution to this Symposium, Monetizing the Benefits of Risk and Environmental Regulation. Professor Viscusi is the leading proponent of cost-benefit analysis as it applies to regulation. He is an astonishingly prolific scholar, and his work has been as influential within the academy as it has in the field.

As a commenter, I am thus fortunate that this piece breaks no new ground, but instead reviews the theory and application of cost-benefit analysis. The range of scholarship on the topic is vast and often technical; Professor Viscusi is the rare scholar who can cite extensively to his own work without appearing immodest. That is of immense value to the commenter, as it helps him trace for the reader the context of Viscusi's work and some of the increasingly formal critical responses thereto.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 28

Accepted Paper Series

Download This Paper

Date posted: October 21, 2006  

Suggested Citation

Scales, Adam F., How Much is that Doggy in the Window? The Inevitably Unsatisfying Duty to Monetize. Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 33, No. 4, May 2006; Washington & Lee Legal Studies Paper No. 2006-13. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=938816

Contact Information

Adam F. Scales (Contact Author)
Washington and Lee University - School of Law ( email )
Sydney Lewis Hall
Lexington, VA 24450
United States
540-458-8520 (Phone)
540-458-8488 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 664
Downloads: 38

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.594 seconds